Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales has ordered the suspension of nine officers of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), including its third in rank, for their alleged mishandling of P27.1 million of the agency’s funds.
The officers are facing graft charges for misusing cash advances, failing to conduct public bidding on purchases and submitting questionable liquidation reports, the Office of the Ombudsman said on Friday.
Morales ordered Rear Adm. Athelo Ybañez, the deputy commandant for operations, and eight other officers to stop performing their functions in the Coast Guard while facing indictment for their alleged involvement in a number of “anomalous” transactions.
Also ordered relieved of their duties were Commodore Joselito dela Cruz, chief of the maritime safety and law enforcement command; Capt. Julius Caesar Victor Marvin Lim, chief of the PCG Southern Tagalog district; Capt. Juancho Maraño, chief of PCG northeastern Luzon district; Capt. Tito Alvin Andal, acting commander of the PCG Air Group; Capt. Teotimo Borja Jr.; Cmdr. Romeo Liwanag Jr.; Cmdr. Christine Pauline Diciano, acting PCG internal auditor; and Lt. Cmdr. Fatima Aleli Angeles, internal auditor.
Retired officials
“Given the respondents’ power and authority, there is strong probability that they may influence or tamper with any evidence material to the case,” Morales said.
Four former officials, including former PCG commandants Rear Adm. Rodolfo Isorena and Rear Adm. William Melad, however, were no longer held liable after they had retired.
Isorena, who took the helm of the PCG in 2012, retired in 2015. His successor, Melad, retired in December 2016, according to PCG records.
Eight other respondents would no longer be meted suspensions, the Ombudsman said, as they have been dismissed in 2017 in a separate case.
The nine officers were suspended for having served as disbursing officers and internal auditors in a number of questionable transactions, the Ombudsman said.
The suspension was based on a complaint filed against the Coast Guard officers by the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Bureau, which probed the alleged cash advances of the respondents.
The investigators found that cash advances that were released to 11 disbursing officers from 2013 to 2016 were “marked with irregularities.”
These included the use of “preaccomplished request” for quotations or canvass forms and “spurious” official receipts or sales invoices allegedly issued by suppliers.
Where are the suppliers?
Several of the suppliers that purportedly issued the receipts cannot be located, the Ombudsman said.
“A significant number” of the more or less 305 invoices submitted were reportedly spurious or not the same as those on file of the issuing entity.
“The acts of respondents in continually approving the irregular cash advances and thereafter liquidating the same with the use of questionable documents are sufficient grounds to warrant their indictment and a finding of guilt for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service,” the Ombudsman said.